Repair of long-bone fractures in cats and small dogs with the Unilock mandible locking plate system

Summary

Objectives: To retrospectively evaluate stabilisation of long-bone fractures in cats and small dogs using the Unilock system.

Methods: Medical histories and radiographs of consecutive patients with long-bone fractures stabilised with the Unilock system were reviewed. Cases with follow-up radiographs taken at least four weeks postoperatively were included. Signalment of the patient, fracture localisation and type, primary fracture repair or revision surgery, single or double plating, and complications for each patient were noted. Additionally, implant size, number of screws, number of cortices engaged with screws, and number of empty holes across the fracture were evaluated in fractures where a single plate had been applied.

Results: Eighteen humeral, 18 radial, 20 fe-moral, and 10 tibial fractures were treated. The Unilock system was used for primary repair in 44 fractures and for revision surgery in 22 fractures. Two plates were applied in 17 fractures, and a single plate was applied in 49 fractures. Follow-up radiographs were taken four to 109 weeks postoperatively. Complications were seen in 12 animals and 13 fractures (19.7%). Fixation failure occurred in seven fractures (10.6%). Cases with a single plate that suffered fixation failure had thinner screws in relation to bone diameter than cases with double plates, and more screws in a main fragment than those without fixation failure.

Clinical significance: The Unilock system is a suitable implant for fracture fixation of long bones in cats and small dogs.

Key words

Internal fixator - Unilock system - fractures - long bones - complications

• References

• 1 Perren SM. Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 2002; 84B: 1093-1110.
• 2 Tepic S, Remiger AR, Morikawa K. et al. Strength recovery in fractured sheep tibia treated with a plate of an internal fixator: An experimental study with a two-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 1997; 11: 14-23.
• 3 Hofer HP, Wildburger R, Szyszkowitz R. Observations concerning different patterns of bone healing using the Point Contact Fixateur (PC-Fix) as a new technique for fracture fixation. Injury 2001; 32S: B15-B25.
• 4 Miller DL, Goswami T. A review of locking compression plate biomechanics and their advantages as internal fixators in fracture healing. Clin Biomech 2007; 22: 1049-1062.
• 5 Perren SM. Backgrounds of the technology of internal fixators. Injury 2003; 34: SB1-SB3.
• 6 Tepic S, Perren SM. The biomechanics of the PC-Fix internal fixator. Injury 1995; 26: SB5-SB10.
• 7 Haas N, Hauke C, Schuetz M. et al. Treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the forearm using the Point Contact Fixator (PC-Fix): Results of 387 fractures of a prospective multicentric study. Injury 2001; 32: SB51-SB62.
• 8 Savoldelli D, Montavon PM. Clinical handling: small animals. Injury 1995; 262: 47-50.
• 9 Schwandt CS, Montavon PM. Locking compression plate fixation of radial and tibial fractures in a young dog. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 194-198.
• 10 Keller MA, Voss K, Montavon PM. The ComPact UniLock 2.0/2.4 system and its clinical application in small animal orthopedics. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2005; 18: 83-93.
• 11 Stoffel K, Dieter U, Stachowiak G. et al. Biomechanical testing of LCP – how can stability in locked internal fixators be controlled?. Injury 2003; 34: B11-B19.
• 12 Schupp W, Arzdorf M, Linke B. et al. Biomechanical testing of different osteosynthesis systems for segmental resection of the mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 924-930.
• 13 Gellrich NC, Suarez-Cunqueiro MM, Otero-Cepeda XL. et al. Comparative study of locking plates in mandibular reconstruction after ablative tumor surgery: THORP versus UniLOCK system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 186-193.
• 14 Gautier E, Sommer C. Guidelines for clinical application of the LCP. Injury 2003; 34: SB63-SB76.
• 15 Ahmad M, Nanda R, Bajwa AS. et al. Biomechanical testing of the locking compression plate: when does the distance between bone and implant significantly reduce construct stability?. Injury 2007; 38: 358-364.
• 16 Sumner-Smith G, Cawley AJ. Nonunion fractures in the dog. J Small Anim Pract 1970; 11: 311-325.
• 17 Sumner-Smith G. A comparative investigation into the healing of fractures in miniature poodles and mongrel dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1974: 323-328.
• 18 Welch JA, Boudrieau RJ, DeJardin LM. et al. The intraosseus blood supply of the radius: Implications for distal fracture healing in small breed dogs. Vet Surg 1997; 26: 57-61.
• 19 Larsen LJ, Roush JK, McLaughlin RM. Bone plate fixation of distal radius and ulna fractures in small and miniature-breed dogs. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1999; 35: 243-225.